Linda, I don't think that approving tonight's (Sept. 9) consent-calendar
authorization for an initial environmental report is controversial -- both
sides
agree on it. My daughter is entering her fourth year of rowing crew at
Berkeley
High, so I have an obvious interest. This note summarizes why I believe the
team should be allowed to use that water.

1. Aquatic Park's renaissance needs to be continued, with more uses and
users. I watched the old play structure rot out and people become afraid to
use the
park. The renaissance brought by the new Dreamland playground, Mark Liolios'
EGRET group at the south end, the new bridge, and other improvements needs
to
be continued and extended. Working with urban creeks and invasive weeds, I
deal first hand and regularly with realities that come with underuse --
needles
and condoms, stashes of stolen good in bushes, camps methodically surrounded
with used toilet paper to keep out intruders. Parks need users to avoid
these.

2. Our children desperately need opportunities to exercise, to be outdoors,
to wor together toward positive goals, to learn to love nature in an active
way. We read daily about the epidemic of obesity, problems of delinquency,
kids
who know only computers, etc. And while teens certainly can be thrilled by
watching wildlife -- my daughter worked on butterfly research this summer --
most
of them, most of the time, will come to love of outdoors by doing something
active there.

Crew is the ultimate team sport -- there are no stars -- and Berkeley High
crew is among the sports that is truly ethnically mixed. And you can be any
body
type -- crew gives big, strong, hefty girls a chance to excel; and small,
lightweight girls a chance to be leaders as coxswains. Although team members
pay
tuition, no girl is turned away for lack of funds -- crew gives full
scholarships -- and anyone can row. Before Prop 13, there were other
public-school
rowing teams, but only here in Berkeley have dedicated parents managed to
maintain
this sport because of what they see it can do for their daughters. (Not
least
of this is that crew girls often get much needed scholarships, due to Title
9. Many a BHS crew girl has gone to a very good college this way, something
she
could otherwise never afford.)

3. I have enough experience with initial studies, negative declarations, and
EIRs to know that they will provide no answers. They elicit factors that
should be considered, but often degenerate into an arcane exercise. (For
example,
the recent mitigated neg dec for expanding the Tile Shop stated that loss of
trees will be mitigated by construction of an attractive warehouse.) In the
end,
the Council will have to decide what balance is best for the city. That is,
is disturbing birds for two hours each day, with mitigations such as added
protections for birds along the west shore, worth the benefit to the young
women
who will be able to row? And this is not just those who row now, but those
who
will be able to row because they can get to practice without the time and
expense of travelling to and from Lake Merritt or some even more distant
spot. I
have been in charge of arranging carpools for crew, and know what a struggle
it is for girls with working parents (or in some cases no parents), for whom

BART is a major expense, who need their time to study or to help with
siblings.
Being able to row in a place accessible by foot, bicicyle, or a short bus
ride
would be such a blessing!

4. While there will never be "enough" habitat for birds, it is important to
remember that habitat for birds on the Bay has increased radically in recent
years, and will continue to do so thanks to bonds approved by voters. In
addition to thousands of acres of new refuge in the North and South Bays,
and
hundreds in Oakland/San Leandro/Hayward, in our own area we have areas of
quiet water
(the habitat provided in Aquatic Park) newly totally protected from
intrusion
in the Emeryville Crescent, Brickyard Cove, and the entire area between the
Albany Bulb and Point Isabel. There also are two smaller lagoons immediately
south of Aquatic Park, where EGRET will be improving already good bird
habitat.

Thus, loss of use of Aquatic Park for two hours a day, plus whatever time it
takes for birds to return after practice, is not the first step on a
slippery
slope.

A footnote to that -- it is possible, though I think unlikely, that the
added
disturbance could tip a balance and radically reduce the number of birds
using Aquatic Park. Crew supports continued monitoring for this reason. But
this
rather remote possibility does not seem adequate to bar use of this urban
park,
created for the city by the WPA. (By the way, I do know something about bird
behavior; years ago I was an avid wildlife watcher and published a book on
it,
among other books on natural history; I also wrote an alas unpublished book
about wildlife in Seattle, another urban area.)

Thanks for your attention to this long email, and for your consideration for
our children.